Please change taxes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

And yes, the game economy will stabilize over time. There will be less undercutters when the general value/price of an item is pretty well established.

---

Silver Sharks were already pretty well established at 4k.
Silver Sharks continue to Yo-Yo around the 1~3k mark weekly.

Stability !

Don't worry, I'm on the phone with Oxford University Press as I type to let them know that the definition of "Stability" has been changed to "In constant fluctuation".

Seriously, the only "well established" price anything is getting at the moment is one which fluctuates, what a fun oxymoron. There is no "Oh, Silver Sharks are now well established at 3k!", there's "Silver Sharks fluctuate wildly day to day". As long as there is no reason not to undercut, people are going to undercut. How on Earth anyone can think otherwise is beyond me, people are seriously not going to just stop if by some miracle prices stop fluctuating. They're going to keep undercutting, because there is no reason not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Sure they use a lot of math, but they aren't hiring mathematicians. The hmmm... comment was to point out the even worse irony that you claim physicists work for banks or other financial institutions. I'd rather see a financial firm run by finance, accounting, and econ majors.

---

What you would rather see does not fucking matter, you obviously aren't in the industry or even studying any of the subjects at university level so just leave you ignorant mongrel.

Sotek: The game is still very new. Yes, things are still in fluctuation right now. However take a look at trade items with many unique (different) suppliers. How many unique/different people are there currently supplying silver sharks? 3? 6? 30? 125? You're cherry picking a specific example to represent a generalization as a whole, fallacy of composition. Like I said before, the game is still fairly new, there are still a lot of items on the market that have 0 suppliers.

Nalien: Stop with both of the ad hominem fallacies, that's even worse than Sotek's logical fallacy. You're a science guy aren't you? And I'll have you know that yes I actually am. Regardless though, even if I wasn't it's obvious you're just attempting to use a poisoning of the well ad hominem on top of the abusive adhominem as well.

Zigkid3,

One question.

What will stop the undercutting?

You mention time and time again, that once the economy 'ages' the undercutting will stop.

You mention that item prices will become stable.

What will cause this?

You say that the price will establish over time, how so?

--

With the current system, the only thing stopping someone from undercutting, is being physically unable to undercut. This is why the 'Stable' price of many items is now 1g. And you say this is good for the economy?

This is certainly good for buyers, but offers little incentive for sellers. And if a seller can get a tax free 1g from a npc, or a taxed 1g from the auction house, why post to the auction house.

Now you say that once no one sells an item on the AH a seller could decide his price? Then another seller would undercut him, and the price would constantly fluctuate. Thus, never becoming stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

Sotek: The game is still very new. Yes, things are still in fluctuation right now. However take a look at trade items with many unique (different) suppliers. How many unique/different people are there currently supplying silver sharks? 3? 6? 30? 125? You're cherry picking a specific example to represent a generalization as a whole, fallacy of composition. Like I said before, the game is still fairly new, there are still a lot of items on the market that have 0 suppliers.

---

The "the game is still new" argument really doesn't hold water on Legacy servers.

As for Silver Sharks, though it is fairly difficult to tell with Retainers, I'd estimate 30 unique suppliers, probably more though. The markets with fewer suppliers seem to be much better off in my experience. The problem really isn't that there aren't enough suppliers, it's that due to ease of undercutting, undercutting becomes a much greater problem. With undercutting only being an issue when you first put something up for sale (something achieved through taxes), that problem goes away. Currently, people wait for everyone else to finish selling and ridiculously undercut prices, then prices return to their established value. People see this, go out gathering with that value in mind. When they return, they undercut by a small amount. People currently selling see this, and undercut again. That spirals, very quickly, into oblivion and people only gather again when people cease supplying and the prices rises again.

I use Silver Sharks as a single example, I could pick plenty more, though yes Sharks are probably the worst and thus best to highlight the problem. The fact remains though, prices have reached "equilibrium", and that "equilibrium" is a state of constant flux. This shows no signs of changing, and why should it? Like I said, Sharks already had an established price. I was selling them for 4k for several weeks. Now? New suppliers saw that and jumped on board. That's fine, I'd expect some undercutting from that. Instead what I get is rampant undercutting as sellers see the inevitable weekly price crash and constantly adjust prices to ensure theirs sells as soon as possible before said crash. People, like me, see the price crash and decide the item is no longer worth their time (because honestly, at the price it falls to, it isn't). The price slowly rises back up ready for next week, and the cycle repeats. Items go up, initial undercutting occurs, secondary/tertiary/etc. undercutting occurs, item becomes worthless, people stop farming, price rises again, repeat. Is that your equilibrium? Your stability? Heck, your market efficiency?

Again. There is no reason not to undercut with it being so simple and cost-free. People will not suddenly stop undercutting with time. With more Retainer Bells coming in Sanctuaries, it will get worse if anything. Same for a Retainer Ap. Currently people have to be in an Inn or by the Market Boards to adjust price, with more places where they can adjust price, more people are going to adjust price more often.

Here's an alternative though, since taxes are teh bad. Limit the amount of times you can put items up for sale and adjust their price. If you put an item up, it stays up. If you adjust its price, you can't adjust its price again for another X hours. If you take it down, it returns to your/Retainers inventory, but you effectively get -1 space on your sales list for where the item previously was, for X hours. This halts rampant undercutting. You cannot adjust price frequently, prices do not crash instantly. If you take something down to adjust price and get around that, you lose sales space (though with 40 slots who the hell cares).

Kazamoto: It will stop when sellers are not willing to undercut any further because they'll have an idea of how much people are willing to pay for the said item, this will eventually stop people from trying to flip items. Then you have the people that aren't flipping, but got an item by other means, theyll post it up and probably will try to undercut a little if they want to sell it right away, if they do, someone will buy it right away and take it off the market. When prices reach equilibrium it's not like it's set in stone forever and cant be changed, there will be a tiny amount of fluctuation but it will hover around a certain point. If the fluctuation is small, it's relatively stable; if there's a lot of variance in prices then it's not stable. anyone who sells below equilibrium, their item will sell fast because its too good to pass up or flippers will have an opportunity for arbitrage, if you sell above equilibrium then no one will buy it and then you're forced to sell for lower.

For things selling at 1g, you're probably seeing this with items that can be bought from a vendor. I'll use cinnamon for example since this is something I actually did. Cinnamon can be bought from a vendor for 4gil, but can only be sold back for 1g. What I did was I noticed the price for cinnamon was way higher on the market than 4gil, I took advantage of this. I bought 100 cinnamon's for 4gil each, sold them in stacks of 5 for I think 80gil each at the time, made 8,000-400=7,600gil profit. People began to catch on that this was an item that could be bought from a vendor for only 4gil. As a result the price tanked down to 4gil, the vendor price (luckily I stopped when I saw the trend of people undercutting down to the vendor price). Everyone else who bought from the vendor for 4gil could either hang on to it and use it themselves, but for those who bought a bunch or people who found it through the game and have no use for it would rather undercut 4gil than get 1gil from an npc. so for those who have cinnamon but don't want it, would want to sell to the market since they can get more than 1gil, but it also needs to be under 4gil. As a result it's going to hover around 2-3gil or even 2-4gil. As for those selling at 1gil, there is no reason to do this since they could instead vendor it for 1gil and get their money right away and not be taxed. I noticed people selling animal hides for 1gil each, same as the vendor price, I bought all of the ones for 1gil and sold them to a vendor and got rid of some supply from the market and increased the price to 2gil. Though I could've maybe sold them for 2gil each instead and double my earnings. If anyone were to undercut and put it up for 1gil again, i could buy it myself and sell for 2gil. then if i was done with the animal hide market I could vendor the rest that never sold for the equal price. So if it drops to 1gil, someone could do that. Anything that could be bought from a vendor that is selling on the market would range from a price of how much it vendors for+1 to how much it can be bought at a vendor, and would hover within that range.

That is for items that can be bought from an npc though. Anything else that can not be bought from an npc however, the price would be player driven and decided by the players.

Sotek: At this point I'd just be repeating myself to you, just go take another look at the graph I showed you with how a tax effects the market. We know that if an item is taxed when it's posted and for any price adjustments, the game will tax more overall than if it was only when an item was sold. So we already know it's going to increase, the issue is how that tax hike would effect the market.
However I do like your other alternative much better of implementing a cooldown for adjustments (not taking away space though). Taxes wouldn't increase, the supply would stay about the same. The only thing is that the supplier's turnover rate would become worse, which would mean slower markets which is what you want but at least this way the prices will stay the same instead of increasing. Though personally I would prefer a faster market than a slower one, but it's way better than the original proposal.

edit: good to know that you can bypass the 1000 character limit by doing an edit. so annoying.

Quote:

---

Nalien: Stop with both of the ad hominem fallacies, that's even worse than Sotek's logical fallacy. You're a science guy aren't you? And I'll have you know that yes I actually am. Regardless though, even if I wasn't it's obvious you're just attempting to use a poisoning of the well ad hominem on top of the abusive adhominem as well.

---

No, you obviously either are not or work for some no-name institution. Otherwise you would not be so ignorant and oblivious to simple and well known facts.
The research departments (and a high amount of other employees in any of the leading finance houses) are real scientists and not economists who wrote two exams about supply and demand bullshit which holds little merit. I highly doubt you even finished a degree considering how blind you are and how strongly you hold onto the most simple (and still, for any actual situation useless) models.

Right now there's three people calling you out on your shit and all you've offered so far was flailing with your arms like a two year old screaming no with nothing to back it up.

Edit: Using Latin won't make you look any less stupid by the way, in fact it serves the exact opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

It will stop when sellers are not willing to undercut any further because they'll have an idea of how much people are willing to pay for the said item,

---

This entirely goes against human nature and the desire for instant gratification.

ASSUMING the arbitrary understood value of widgetA is 50g, the next seller will put his up for 49g, to sell faster. Its human nature, and it will further the spiral downward. As long as there is no cost to undercutting, there is no incentive to not undercut.

In games with well established economies like EvE and FFXI, the tax is applied to the seller at the time the item is posted. In 14 the tax is taken when it sells. With this change, there would be a penalty to constant price adjustment and more stable prices would occur.


It matters not, in terms of gil sink when the tax is taken. Before or after, the only change is to how people sell things. Heck, in ffxi it was possible to sell at a loss.

In Jeuno the taxes were:
Single item fee = 1% of the seller's asking price +50 gil.
Stacked item fee = 0.5% of the seller's asking price +200 gil

So if someone wanted to sell an item for 1g, it would cost them 49 to do so.

If 14's tax model followed, people wouldn't dump items on the ah for 1g, nor would they constantly adjust their price by -1g to out undercut their competitors.

And in a trial of absurdity. I dumped all by 5k of my gil into my retainer then attacked the markets. I bought anything selling for less than its npc price.

After 2 hours, i had 12k. (12-5=7k profit)

This should not work

(Thanks Sotek for the fish idea, most of my money makers were fish. When it npc's for 12g, why is the stack up for 3g each!?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

No, you obviously either are not or work for some no-name institution. Otherwise you would not be so ignorant and oblivious to simple and well known facts.
The research departments (and a high amount of other employees in any of the leading finance houses) are real scientists and not economists who wrote two exams about supply and demand bullshit which holds little merit. I highly doubt you even finished a degree considering how blind you are and how strongly you hold onto the most simple (and still, for any actual situation useless) models.

Right now there's three people calling you out on your shit and all you've offered so far was flailing with your arms like a two year old screaming no with nothing to back it up.

Edit: Using Latin won't make you look any less stupid by the way, in fact it serves the exact opposite.

---

Nalien, Through-out this entire thread I've been the person who's given out the most evidence and reasoning for my claims, you on the other hand have contributed the least. All you do is commit a bunch of red herring fallacies with every post: Ad hominem, Poisoning the well, abusive fallacy, and recently appeal to authority and bandwagon argument/appeal to majority. Most people believed the Earth was the center of the universe, just because you're not on the majority side does not make you wrong. Besides, you don't even count, I know you're in the same exact guild/FC with Sotek, you're just here to support your fellow guildie. Most of this thread has really just been Sotek and I, and only just recently did Kazmoto chime in.
All you do is attempt to derail any actual arguments in an attempt to discredit the opposition through an appeal to authority fallacy. But since you keep whining about it, here you go: Graduated from CA State University of Fullerton (one of the best business schools on the west coast), double major in finance and economics, graduated on dean's list, I've taken multiple econ/accounting/finance courses (even did AP Econ in highschool and scored a 4/5 on the AP exam, 3 is needed to pass), was in the finance association which is a club at Fullerton/mihaylo college of business, interned at Goldman Sachs LA branch for a year, currently working at ALM advisors which is a financial advisory firm for investments.
Though not like it matters, you'll just disregard everything as usual even though I gave you what you wanted. So since you bring it up, what about yourself? Let me guess, you're a physics major aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazamoto

In Jeuno the taxes were:
Single item fee = 1% of the seller's asking price +50 gil.
Stacked item fee = 0.5% of the seller's asking price +200 gil

So if someone wanted to sell an item for 1g, it would cost them 49 to do so.

If 14's tax model followed, people wouldn't dump items on the ah for 1g, nor would they constantly adjust their price by -1g to out undercut their competitors.

And in a trial of absurdity. I dumped all by 5k of my gil into my retainer then attacked the markets. I bought anything selling for less than its npc price.

After 2 hours, i had 12k. (12-5=7k profit)

This should not work

---

Congratulations, what you have just described is something called a "price floor". Price floor's are used to increase the minimum price of an item above what the actual equilibrium is (but we were discussing the implications of imposing more tax). A price floor could get rid of any items that are selling for 1gil, if one is imposed it would probably be slightly lower to how much an item can be bought for from an npc, cause if i wanted cinnamon an npc can sell it for 4gil so i wouldn't want to pay any higher than that, but then there'd be a tax on the 4gil if it was set at 4, so better just get it from the npc for 4gil and no tax instead which would mean the price floor would need to be set to about 3gil for cinnamon. Though if stuff are selling for 1gil then that means there's so much supply and very little demand for it, you'll see this with very common items.

As for the profit you made in 2 hours through reselling stuff. what you did was help fix the market equilibrium. if there's a huge price gap in items, people will take advantage of it until the point that it's no longer possible, just like what i did with cinnamon. Another example would be last night, i looked up silver sharks on my servers since sotek mentioned them. There were only 6 posts of silver sharks, and only 4 of them were unique different sellers, so at least on my server it was a market with a lot of volatility because there are so few suppliers that someone can easily take advantage and single-handedly monopolize the silver shark market on my server (i did this with undyed cloth). all of the silver sharks were selling at 3,500 each except for one which was selling at 1k, I took it and resold that one for 3.4k by undercutting. in doing so im bringing an item closer to equilibrium. The faster people are able to do this, the faster prices can fix themselves from price discrepancies. the slower the market, the slower that prices are able to fix themselves from price gaps.

Finished Economics , now studying Mathematics and had my fair share of insight into reputable banks.
Since I actually have experience from both sides I can tell you that you have no idea about mathematics and if you truly believe your pity models have merit for any scenario other than telling silly Economics undergraduates that people will buy less crap if the price goes up and similar then you either only very recently finished your studies and have missed the point of the degree.
With what information you have now given you have barely even scraped on the surface of the finance world and have at best gone through some spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations.
You're clearly still green or you wouldn't be holding so dearly to the models of your little degree.

I thank you for stalking me by the way, but I am not here to support anyone, I just find it exceedingly amusing how perfectly you fit into the role of a little economist student who knows and understands shit all even after the completion of their degree.

And lastly, 4/5 (80%) is nothing special , people with such scores won't even be taken at any of the three universities that I have attended or am attending currently. If you managed to average >96% in lolhighschool (I can't believe you're bringing 80% in a single high school exam up, how sad) and manage to maintain >95% in at least economics (you obviously won't be able to pull of mathematics) I might think of being impressed. You'd still be a fool for giving merit to a model that is about as advanced as a traffic light though.


Actually here's some more since I barely even skim your post:

Any "club" or association at university means nothing at all, they take anyone. I've had to deal with complete airheads at such a place during my econ days and boy was it a waste of time. The only good this serves is networking and nothing else.
And the sheer fact you bring up "several econ/finance courses" as if it wasn't a given when studying at an HE institution is quite entertaining as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

As for the last thing.....
I also have no clue why the different cities have different tax rates. It would make sense for each city to have their own fluctuating tax rates if the markets in each city were separate from each other, that way it would encourage people to sell at the city with the lowest tax rate to increase the supply in that city to ensure that everything is evenly distributed.
However, since the market is connect with all of the cities, this makes it completely pointless as everyone would just sell from the city with the lowest tax, but the same supply will be able to be accessed from any city.


Sorry for all of the posts in a row, the forum imposes a 1000 character limit -_- my post was like 4500.

---

You can copy what you write post it, then click "Edit" and paste the rest of it and by pass that 1000 character limit.

Nalien: Like I said, you just disregard anything you don't want to hear, and keep resorting to red herring tactics/appeal to authority. I was simply just listing things off, whether or not you want to value any of those things after begging for so long is up to you. Given the way you've been acting in all of your posts, I highly doubt anything you've said about yourself to be true, then again it's the internet so you could say the same for me if you want, it still won't change the fact that I at least back up my claims. You have had no actual contribution, logic, or reasoning through out this entire thread. Also it was pretty obvious since next to your posts it says the same servers, and you happen to be defending an idea that's so painfully obvious terrible.

mistressathena: yeah i noticed that, i assumed at first that if you edited a post that it wouldn't let you save the edit if it exceeded the limit. but i guess that was a derp on square enix's part.

You haven't backed any of your claims up and deny facts about finance houses, everything you say is obsolete.

(Next time you decide to run your mouth you could at least do as much as checking CVs of the people you "worked/interned" for, if your supposed employers knew of your ignorance about their house they would outright fire you on the spot.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

As for the profit you made in 2 hours through reselling stuff. what you did was help fix the market equilibrium...

all of the silver sharks were selling at 3,500 each except for one which was selling at 1k, I took it and resold that one for 3.4k by undercutting. in doing so im bringing an item closer to equilibrium.

---

What I did, was bring the price up to the NPC value.

What you did, was establish a new value by undercutting. While true, you made a decent personal profit, you contributed to the downward spiral.

As things are now, the 'equilibrium' you mention will always be the npc value. Which in a way is a price floor of its own.


If the NPC value of silver sharks was 3500, there would be no reason to lower the price from there on the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

B-b-but it only makes since for a buyer to want to buy things for as cheap as they possibly can.

Maybe it's you that has no idea.

---

This is from another thread, and the entire issue with your arguments so far.

Your point of view is always from the buyer's side. When the seller can make the same gil npc-ing an item, with instant gratification, and no taxes, why would they bother with the auction house?

And, even if they did, someone would then undercut for a profit, but quicker sale, then the next person, would do the same, until the price fell again to the npc value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazamoto

What I did, was bring the price up to the NPC value.

What you did, was establish a new value by undercutting. While true, you made a decent personal profit, you contributed to the downward spiral.

As things are now, the 'equilibrium' you mention will always be the npc value. Which in a way is a price floor of its own.

---

Yes, anything that can be bought from an npc will see it's value at or slightly below how much an npc would sell it for.

Things that can't simply be bought from an npc however, will be completely player driven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazamoto

This is from another thread, and the entire issue with your arguments so far.

---

In that thread someone mentioned that they would like to buy items for as cheap as possible. my quote was in reply to someone else who berated the first person for wanting things to be cheap.
From his perspective, it makes sense that if you are paying for something that you want it as cheap as possible. From a seller's perspective it makes sense that you want to sell something for as much as possible. Given this constant struggle, and competition from other sellers is how you get equilibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazamoto

Your point of view is always from the buyer's side. When the seller can make the same gil npc-ing an item, with instant gratification, and no taxes, why would they bother with the auction house?

---

My point of view in this thread so far has been about the economy as a whole, and the effects on the proposed change.
As for the second part, you are right. They would have no reason to bother with the auction house if they can get the same price tax free instantly from an npc if that's the case, like if the market was at 2gil but an npc also buys it back for 2gil. What I was saying though is an npc could sell an item for say 10gil, but the npc themselves would only buy it back from you for 1gil. So if you happen to have the item (that can be npc bought) and don't want it, why npc for 1gil when you can sell it for 8-9 on the market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazamoto

someone would then undercut for a profit, but quicker sale, then the next person, would do the same, until the price fell again to the npc value.

---

Yes that is correct, exactly what i've been saying.

Has anyone mentioned buying out your competitors? Cause that's what I do, all the time. If someone wants to undercut me that's fine, I just spend a few minutes playing the undercut game until they are selling at a price I can make a profit off of, buy their stuff, and the re-list everything at my price. Sometimes they buy me out, which is fine, it happens. But most of the time I get rid of a competitor (for a while anyway) and wind up having more to sell than I originally did.

Even if I don't feel like playing the lowest bidder game, I just list my stuff for the market average. It always sells, it might take a few days while people are buying up the silly undercutters stuff but eventually my stuff sells for the price I wanted it to move at (usually in the wee morning hours when all the kiddies are asleep).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hybred

Has anyone mentioned buying out your competitors? Cause that's what I do, all the time. If someone wants to undercut me that's fine, I just spend a few minutes playing the undercut game until they are selling at a price I can make a profit off of, buy their stuff, and the re-list everything at my price. Sometimes they buy me out, which is fine, it happens. But most of the time I get rid of a competitor (for a while anyway) and wind up having more to sell than I originally did.

Even if I don't feel like playing the lowest bidder game, I just list my stuff for the market average. It always sells, it might take a few days while people are buying up the silly undercutters stuff but eventually my stuff sells for the price I wanted it to move at (usually in the wee morning hours when all the kiddies are asleep).

---

I have done this too. It works well if you have the gil for it, there aren't many other competitors, and depending on your risk tolerance.

I undercut on more things than I like... more due to the fact that I can only have 40 active auctions, and need to move things faster, or have 50 things in retainer just waiting to sell at all times. How about give us another retainer for each level 50 craft we get? If I wasn't so limited on space to list items.. the time it spent for sale wouldn't matter as much.. and less adjustments would happen

I'm definitely against pre-commission, I think that is an absurd method and I don't even thing Real Auction Houses use this any more.

I suggested something in one of the other threads, I will post it here:-

Quote:

---

They could just put floors and ceilings on prices based on average sales price (they can get this data from the sales history), its much more user friendly than pre-taxing a player on an item which may never sell.

The more items that sell the stronger the average stability will become and the less chance of undercutting and price hiking having an effect.

Of course you would have to completely reset the markets, as much of the damage has already been done.

---

To go into some more detail here, the price floors/ceilings can be set by SE, say -/+ 5% on the average price, there is a good chance that undercutting will still take place but it will be much less severe due to the average keeping prices from dramatically dropping or increasing.

If anyone has bothered to look at the sales history also you can see that not always are items in a free fall state, sometimes items will drop and them come back up after a time, so a system like this would work in keeping prices stable.

This obviously takes away a part of the player run economy but I have yet to see a good player base economy in other games outside of EVE online.

TL;DR - Players can't be trusted, and RMT certainly can't, right now the markets in a free fall just like FFXI back in the day when it was over run by RMT, SE need to step it and stop this happening before its too late.

City taxes are fucking stupid.

i mean seller already pay their 5% ( or more)

then the buyer , if hes not in the proper city has to pay also 5%

so what 10% taxes ?

just remove city/buyer taxes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinko

I'm definitely against pre-commission, I think that is an absurd method and I don't even thing Real Auction Houses use this any more.

---

Jinko, normally I agree with what you are advocating, but on this point I would have to disagree. I am advocating this to curb the rampant undercutting that is killing market prices and causing market prices changes that would not be seen in the real world. Personally, I think SE's goal for the AH was to try to mimic real life, and I don't think that is possible given the current process.

Oh real auction houses are only in the business of selling 1 of a kind type things so there is almost no chance that the same auction house would have say... 2 Mona Lisas (yes its an absurd example but the point still remains). The closest thing i see that would be close to the auction house would be a consignment store or a pawn shop. I know they won't let you change the price daily w/o some compensation on their part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OptimalZedd

City taxes are fucking stupid.

i mean seller already pay their 5% ( or more)

then the buyer , if hes not in the proper city has to pay also 5%

so what 10% taxes ?

just remove city/buyer taxes

---

Optimal, two things to your statement:

1) The 5% taxes are on two separate sides of the sale. The buyer pays the "out-of-state" tax if you were to buy something listed in LL when you are in Ul'dah. The seller pays the AH fee. You are only paying 10% if you are buying your own item.

2) This is a good thing. In 1.0, it was a PITA to try and sell something in Gridana when you knew everyone and their grandmother sold stuff in Ul'dah. Also, with the market wards, there was a set limit to how many people could be up at one time per ward, so if you were late when servers came back you were stuck w/o any place to sell your wares in the most heavly populated ward. People did request that a person be able to buy from different city. Consider it a "shipping and handling" fee. This is a good thing.

Just my 2gil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wulfies

Jinko, normally I agree with what you are advocating, but on this point I would have to disagree. I am advocating this to curb the rampant undercutting that is killing market prices and causing market prices changes that would not be seen in the real world. Personally, I think SE's goal for the AH was to try to mimic real life, and I don't think that is possible given the current process.

---

Yup and what I am suggestion also does the same thing without the need to punish someone before sale, add to that my suggestion here and I see it working brilliantly (bias included :P)

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post1310289

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinko

Yup and what I am suggestion also does the same thing without the need to punish someone before sale, add to that my suggestion here and I see it working brilliantly (bias included :P)

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post1310289

---

Interesting idea you have. Trying to force a min price to stop stupidity. Question is how does it solve your premise of undercutting over the course of a day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wulfies

Interesting idea you have. Trying to force a min price to stop stupidity. Question is how does it solve your premise of undercutting over the course of a day?

---

My previous post above (#59) regarding not being able to undercut or over price by 5% of the current average.

If someone undercuts an item with an average of 53 gil for example you subtract 5% 3 gil (50 gil), but this is then adding back into the average which would give you a new average of 53+50 / 2 = 51 gil, the next person undercuts by 5% (48 gil) this is added in 53+50+48/3 = 50.

Next person decides to raise the price by 5%, which is 52 gil, new average is 51 gil, this continues and the more sales history the more stable the price becomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinko

My previous post above (#59) regarding not being able to undercut or over price by 5% of the current average.

If someone undercuts an item with an average of 53 gil for example you subtract 5% 3 gil (50 gil), but this is then adding back into the average which would give you a new average of 53+50 / 2 = 51 gil, the next person undercuts by 5% (48 gil) this is added in 53+50+48/3 = 50.

Next person decides to raise the price by 5%, which is 52 gil, new average is 51 gil, this continues and the more sales history the more stable the price becomes.

---

will this 5% be based on what people buy the item or based on current listings? Cause if its based on listings the first person that posts a listing could really ruin the market. Your theory would work on established markets but not on fresh system, which is what will happen if they have to implement any kind of change. Cause as it stands right now, you believe that the market is undervalued for materials?

Here is an absurd example to prove a point:

Lets assume all prior sales and listings are cleared from the system. Now I go in and put my chunks or copper ore for 1mil gil each. at 5% per listing drop it would take about 40 sale posts to get the price down to about 110k (that is assuming that the original poster doesn't try to raise the avg.)

Based on the previously sold items. (Price history window)

But agree that on a fresh market the first price dictates the value of the item and from that point it is hard to change the items price, so it does have one big draw back.

The only solution to that would be SE setting a starting price, of course they won't do this as it takes too much time and effort.

So idea out the window basically lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigkid3

As for the last thing.....
Sorry for all of the posts in a row, the forum imposes a 1000 character limit -_- my post was like 4500.

---

You can edit the original post and make it very long

Yeah, i really don't see SE setting the starting price. seeing how they are so "busy" fixing problems like RMTs, game breaking flaws, and apologizing for the problems. /sarcasm off

So its ok for you to undercut someone but not ok for them to keep an eye out on the market and undercut you back so they can sell their item faster? Little do you know if you werent in such a rush it doesnt matter if that person undercut you again. Keep your item at the same price and it will eventually sell.. You choose to advocate the rampant cuts by doing it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiz_Cineris

So its ok for you to undercut someone but not ok for them to keep an eye out on the market and undercut you back so they can sell their item faster? Little do you know if you werent in such a rush it doesnt matter if that person undercut you again. Keep your item at the same price and it will eventually sell.. You choose to advocate the rampant cuts by doing it yourself.

---

I really don't think anyone is trying to setup a double standard. I think it is to curb the excess 1 gil drops. I have seen the price drop 10 times in the span of 2 min by the same person just to undercut the other undercuterer (is that even a word :p ) Its to force people to at least think that "ok, if I want to undercut, there goes some of my profit ontop of what I loose due to the undercutting.

if they're trying to buy and resell an item, they'll undercut to the point where they're forced to stop or else it wont be profitable. thats when the undercutting will stop at least for resellers. for those that are just plain selling items that they acquired themselves, well then people will get stuff for cheaper.

Zigkid3's posts are spot on. All of these 'complaints', are merely parts of a functioning economy. Gil-sinks are an absolute must. Undercutting is indicative of supply/demand. I undercut when I want to move product. I don't when I have patience to wait, such as my HQ sales.

thanks moon.

Let me put it this way for those of you that actually want to limit being able to adjust price whenever....

It won't matter. Because there are so many people out there, people will make new postings anyways, and the new posters will still undercut you. either way you're still going to be undercut. the only difference is that you'll have no way to fight back against it cause you just gimped yourself.

I agree, I also wish they would remove the "vendor value" from the pricing tab when you are listing an item. In some games the market will add the "lowest list price" in this manner and it is my opinion that it is confusing some gamers.

The reason they destroy gil I the former of taxes, travel cost and gear repair is the economy does suffer from mass inflation.

You can't have a system where 10's of thousands of gil are being created everyday from questing leve and dungeon drops without ending up in a year or so with every player having 5-10 million gil and everything on the mb costing thousands and thousands. Then the 700 gil you get from a leve will be worthless and the economy is destroyed.

That's kinda what happened in ffxi and they had to implement really heavy taxes in year 3 of the game.

+1 Zigkid3

For people that want tax applied to adjusting price:
You just slow down the undercutting process. People will still undercutting but with slower pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnsayMoon

Zigkid3's posts are spot on. All of these 'complaints', are merely parts of a functioning economy. Gil-sinks are an absolute must. Undercutting is indicative of supply/demand. I undercut when I want to move product. I don't when I have patience to wait, such as my HQ sales.

---

Sure, but some forms of undercutting causes the equilbrium price to be reached faster than other forms of undercutting. Putting 2.5% posting tax, 2.5% readjusting tax and 2.5% sell tax, instead of having just a 5% tax like now, will eliminate the 1-gil undercutting strategy and make all prices reach the equilibrium price faster.

Currently in far too many markets, 1-gil undercutters are keeping the prices up higher than the equilibrium price. The proof is: if the price around where 1-gil undercutters sell was the true equilbrium price, then they wouldn't have to keep 1-gil undercutting, because at that point the supply is the same as the demand and both the 1-gil undercutter's goods and the 1 gil above him would sell. The reason they keep 1-gil undercutting each other is because the price is above equilibrium price and only the part of the supply that happens to show furthest up on the list despite being practically the same price would sell.

Read my thread at http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...really-fix-it. for a more elaborate explanation.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/f...-and-Retainers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wahyudi1986

+1 Zigkid3

For people that want tax applied to adjusting price:
You just slow down the undercutting process. People will still undercutting but with slower pace.

---

As long as the prices are above the equilibrium price, they will keep undercutting each other, yes. If the price goes below the equilibrium price, you no longer need to undercut, because putting at a slightly higher price that is a bit higher but still below the equilibrium price would still sell.

A good example of a market where you don't want to keep undercutting at all times: many Elemental materia markets. Because at low enough price (which happens a lot on Phoenix), it will go below the equilibrium price and at that point people will buy them simply to speed up their soul-binding for materia-conversion. For instance there is a far higher demand for Earth III materia at 5 gil than there are Earth III materia on the server.

By introducing the readjusting fee at 2.5% as well as posting fee at 2.5% and changing sell fee to 2.5% from current 5%, 1-gil undercutting is eliminated as strategy. This will speed up the path towards equilibrium price. Few large jumps can get further than many small ones; specially in the case of the small 1-gil undercut jumps, the equilibrium price takes forever to be met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadesh

The reason they destroy gil I the former of taxes, travel cost and gear repair is the economy does suffer from mass inflation.

You can't have a system where 10's of thousands of gil are being created everyday from questing leve and dungeon drops without ending up in a year or so with every player having 5-10 million gil and everything on the mb costing thousands and thousands. Then the 700 gil you get from a leve will be worthless and the economy is destroyed.

That's kinda what happened in ffxi and they had to implement really heavy taxes in year 3 of the game.

---

SE has already implemented some seriously, imho crappy, ways to significantly destroy gil.

1) if you came over form 1.0 you lost 90% of the gil stored (my tens of millions of gil went to just millions of gil) :(
2) selling drops from a lvl 50 mob/gathering spot will only get you 10-12 gil at the max. Same with the high end crafting gear (i have yet to see anything crafter made that sells for over 100 gil)
3) Repair costs (till they "fixed/reduced" the rates) were just a way to suck money out of the economy.
4) Teleports! good god the amount of gil it takes to go rom Uldah to Gridana or Uldah to Limsa let alone anywhere to Mor Dhona or Coerthas.
5) Foreth-coming Housing - thankfully its not a buy the house (millions of gil just for the house w/o furniture) and have to pay a monthly rent cause that would be crazy talk.
6) tax on selling 5% is fine as is. With the Market Boards, there is no money being created in game, all we have is jsut money changing hands, less the fees of course.

To top that off look at how you make gil:

1) side quests (which to my knowledge can only be completed once) and even then, I finished a lvl 45 side quest and walked away with less than 700 gil.
2) leve quests, (now i have only experience from a few crafting and mostly gathering) give small rewards as well (eg. lvl 35 gathering/crafting leves give from 300-600). For crafters that barely would cover the costs of the materials.




Based on this, I think they are set on destroying money quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HurtigeKarl

Read my thread at http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...really-fix-it. for a more elaborate explanation.

---

You've only explored one aspect on the adjustment fees, but did not consider the other consequences of it.

Adjustment fees makes downward adjustments faster as you've posted, but once it hits equilibrium, it hinders response to changes in equilibrium, especially upward adjustments. These are probably going to be minute changes that no one will notice.

Similarly, since the speed of the price reaching equilibrium is driven primarily by market activity, the difference of implementing adjustment fees will be minute at best, probably not noticable to most of the players. This only applies to smaller markets where there are small number of participants, as for the larger market, prices are being driven to the equilibrium quite quickly.

So in all, I don't think the cost and benefit of going through the trouble to implement such measure is worth it, and the impact is going to be marginal at best.

Also, I'm a free market supporter to some extend...so leave the market at its natural state.

Showing the listing price of items on the market is the root of every issue currently that we are seeing. It is simple as limit shown history for sales and do not show listed prices.